alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019295EN.01003801.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/38

---

Order of the General Court of 27 June 2019 — CJ v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case T-1/19) (1)

(Law governing the institutions - Documents available to the public on the internet relating to closed General Court and Civil Service Tribunal cases - Request for anonymity ex post - Failure of the Court of Justice of the European Union to respond to the request - Action for failure to act - Position adopted in the course of the proceedings - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

(2019/C 295/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: CJ (represented by V. Kolias, lawyer)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by J. Inghelram, Á. Almendros Manzano and V. Hanley-Emilsson, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 265 TFEU seeking a declaration that the Court of Justice of the European Union unlawfully failed to grant the applicant anonymity, ex post, as regards publicly available documents relating to closed General Court and Civil Service Tribunal cases or, in the alternative, to ensure that versions bearing his name (‘nominal versions’) are not accessible to internet search engine providers.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The Court of Justice of the European Union shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Court of Justice of the European Union shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Allen Watson, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dubin, J.), rendered June 30, 1982, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, and criminal use of a firearm in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Defendant contends that the evidence of guilt is insufficient, particularly because the complainant’s identification was based upon a brief observation of defendant at about 6:30 a.m., in dusk-like light. He also claims that he was denied a fair trial on several grounds.

In reviewing the record in the light most favorable to the People, as we are obligated to do, and bearing in mind that credibility is a factor to be determined by the jury, we find that “the record contains evidence sufficient in quantity and quality to support the verdict” *(People v Malizia,*62 NY2d 755, 757).

Moreover, we find no merit to defendant’s contention that the pretrial identification procedures were impermissively suggestive *(see, e.g., People v Rodriguez,*64 NY2d 738).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and also find no merit to them.

Lazer, J. P., Thompson, O’Connor and Niehoff, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ricky Rogers, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Baker, J.), rendered January 7, 1983, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Sufficient evidence was adduced to prove defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the testimony of the accomplice was amply corroborated as required by CPL 60.22. The other contentions raised by defendant have been reviewed and found to be meritless. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Gibbons and Bracken, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the Annual Report of Kentucky Bancshares, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Louis Prichard, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.



                              ___/s/ Louis Prichard_______
                              Chief Executive Officer

                              March 30, 2007

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Kentucky Bancshares, Inc. and will be retained by Kentucky
Bancshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.



101
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Frank Cardillo, Jr., Respondent.

Appeal by the People, as limited by their motion, from two sentences of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lodato, J.), both imposed March 22,1983, upon defendant’s convictions of criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree and unauthorized use of a vehicle, upon a jury verdict, the sentences being concurrent definite terms of imprisonment of one year and six months, respectively.

Sentences modified, on the law, by vacating the sentence for criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree. As so modified, sentences affirmed and matter remitted to Criminal Term for resentencing in accordance herewith.

After a hearing, Criminal Term adjudicated defendant to be a second felony offender. The defendant was sentenced erroneously to a definite sentence under the felony charge. Therefore, the matter must be remitted for resentencing as a second felony offender in accordance with Penal Law § 70.06 (2).

Parenthetically, we note that the defendant has since been incarcerated on another conviction. Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Brown and Fiber, JJ., concur.
# C_2020061EN.01004101.xml

| 24.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 61/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/41

---

Order of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — DK Company v EUIPO — Hunter Boot (DENIM HUNTER)

(Case T-74/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark DENIM HUNTER - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

(2020/C 61/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: DK Company A/S (Ikast, Denmark) (represented by: S. Hansen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Hunter Boot (Edinburgh, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 November 2018 (Case R 849/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Hunter Boot and DK Company.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.

---
# C_2021148EN.01001601.xml

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2021 — EM v Parliament

(Case T-599/19) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Psychological harassment - Request for assistance - Rejection of the request - Retirement - Duty to provide assistance - Principle of sound administration - Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff)

(2021/C 148/21)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: EM (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: D. Boytha, C. González Argüelles and T. Lazian, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 31 October 2018 rejecting the applicant’s request for assistance, as confirmed by the decision of 24 May 2019 rejecting his complaint and, secondly, compensation for the material and non-material harm which the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 15, 2018

No. 04-17-00652-CV

Ruben RIOS,

Appellant

v.

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,

Appellee

From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017W0521

Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellant’s Motion for Recalculation of Deadline Briefing is GRANTED. The

appellant’s brief is due on March 5, 2018.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 15th day of February, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 31.2

Noble Corporation plc, a company registered under the laws of England and Wales

I, James A. MacLennan, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Noble Corporation plc; and
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 30, 2014

| |  |                                                                                                                                                        
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 
| |  | /s/ James A. MacLennan                                                                                                                                 
| |  | James A. MacLennan Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer of Noble Corporation plc, a company registered under the laws of England and Wales
IIA 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 11 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative 

to limiting the number of terms that a Member of Congress may serve 

to 3 in the House of Representatives and 2 in the Senate. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 14, 2011 

Mr. DEMINT (for himself, Mr. VITTER, Ms. AYOTTE, Mr. COBURN, Mr. ENSIGN, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin, Mr. LEE, Mr. 

PAUL, Mr. RUBIO, and Mr. TOOMEY) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States relative to limiting the number of terms that 

a Member of Congress may serve to 3 in the House 

of Representatives and 2 in the Senate. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 11 IS 

1 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

2 States: 

3 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

4 ‘‘SECTION 1. No person who has served three terms 

5 as a Representative shall be eligible for election to the 

6 House of Representatives. For purposes of this section, 

7 the election of a person to fill a vacancy in the House of 

8 Representatives shall be included as one term in deter9 mining the number of terms that such person has served 

10 as a Representative if the person fills the vacancy for more 

11 than one year. 

12 ‘‘SECTION 2. No person who has served two terms 

13 as a Senator shall be eligible for election or appointment 

14 to the Senate. For purposes of this section, the election 

15 or appointment of a person to fill a vacancy in the Senate 

16 shall be included as one term in determining the number 

17 of terms that such person has served as a Senator if the 

18 person fills the vacancy for more than three years. 

19 ‘‘SECTION 3. No term beginning before the date of 

20 the ratification of this article shall be taken into account 

21 in determining eligibility for election or appointment under 

22 this article.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Wilfredo Rivera, Appellant.

—Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ramirez, J.), rendered July 8, 1982, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea under the circumstances of this case, which include a full and detailed plea allocution during which defendant admitted his guilt and reiterated several times that he was pleading freely and voluntarily.

We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber and Kooper, JJ., concur.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
<MULTIPLIER>                                      1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           8,042
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 4,600
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     14,898
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          14,499
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            14,555
<LOANS>                                        120,272
<ALLOWANCE>                                    (1,275)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 164,685
<DEPOSITS>                                     149,309
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,574
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,152
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,668
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 164,685
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  7,512
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,313
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   300
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 9,125
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,370
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,370
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            5,755
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      180
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 (2)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  4,352
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,604
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,604
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       919
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .97
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .97
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.09
<LOANS-NON>                                        603
<LOANS-PAST>                                       294
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,551
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      464
<RECOVERIES>                                         8
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,275
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               453
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            822
        


</TABLE>
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 978 

To amend the criminal penalty provision for criminal infringement of a 

copyright, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 12, 2011 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself, Mr. CORNYN, and Mr. COONS) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the criminal penalty provision for criminal 

infringement of a copyright, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT OF A COPYRIGHT. 

4 (a) AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 2319 OF TITLE 18.— 

5 Section 2319 of title 18, United States Code, is amend6 ed— 

7 (1) in subsection (b)— 

8 (A) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and 

9 (3) as paragraphs (3) and (4), respectively; and 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 978 IS

1 (B) by inserting after paragraph (1) the 

2 following: 

3 ‘‘(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, 

4 fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, 

5 if— 

6 ‘‘(A) the offense consists of 10 or more 

7 public performances by electronic means, during 

8 any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted 

9 works; and 

10 ‘‘(B)(i) the total retail value of the per11 formances, or the total economic value of such 

12 public performances to the infringer or to the 

13 copyright owner, would exceed $2,500; or 

14 ‘‘(ii) the total fair market value of licenses 

15 to offer performances of those works would ex16 ceed $5,000;’’; and 

17 (2) in subsection (f), by striking paragraph (2) 

18 and inserting the following: 

19 ‘‘(2) the terms ‘reproduction’, ‘distribution’, 

20 and ‘public performance’ refer to the exclusive rights 

21 of a copyright owner under clauses (1), (3), (4), and 

22 (6), respectively of section 106 (relating to exclusive 

23 rights in copyrighted works), as limited by sections 

24 107 through 122, of title 17;’’. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 978 IS

1 (b) AMENDMENT TO SECTION 506 OF TITLE 17.— 

2 Section 506(a) of title 17, United States Code, is amend3 ed— 

4 (1) in paragraph (1)(C), by inserting ‘‘or public 

5 performance’’ after ‘‘distribution’’ the first place it 

6 appears; and 

7 (2) in paragraph (3)— 

8 (A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ‘‘or 

9 public performance’’ after ‘‘unauthorized dis10 tribution’’; and 

11 (B) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ‘‘or 

12 public performance’’ after ‘‘distribution’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
exv10w22









Exhibit 10.22



 





Confidential Materials omitted and filed separately with the

Securities and Exchange Commission. Asterisks denote omissions.





Second side letter to Supply Agreement effective November 6, 2009




To: Biodel Inc.

Attn: Gerard Michel

100 Saw Mill Road,

Danbury, CT 06810, U.S.A.




Re: Deviation from and Amendment to Supply Agreement of 7 July 2008 (“Supply Agreement)




Dear Gerard,



Based upon recent discussions between Biodel and Organon it is understood that both parties desire
to extend the current Supply Agreement as described below. Biodel requests a modification to the
Supply Agreement such that the Fixed Quarterly Quantities of the Product to be delivered in
calendar year 2010, as referred to in article 4.1 of the Supply Agreement, are reduced to the
following: [**] in Q1, [**] in Q2, [**] in Q3 and [**] in Q4.



In addition to the revision above, the parties hereby amend the Supply Agreement such that the term
of the agreement in article 11.1 is extended through December 31, 2011, with the total of all Fixed
Quarterly Quantities for 2011 to be no less than [**]. The timing of delivery, pricing and other
details relating to the [**] will be determined by the parties at a later date, but in any event no
later than the second calendar quarter of 2010. For any quantity above [**] Organon has no
obligation to supply until Organon’s confirmation is sent to Biodel.



We agree to such amendment of the Supply Agreement and waive the reduction fee otherwise called for
in article 4.1(b) thereof, on the following conditions:



1. Biodel shall not further reduce the revised 2010 and 2011 quantities.



2. Biodel agrees to working with Organon in an open and pro-active atmosphere in accordance with
the letter and the spirit of the Supply Agreement, Confidentiality Agreements, side letters and/or
any other agreements that have been entered into.



Biodel agrees to abide by the above conditions. If any of these conditions are violated, Biodel
acknowledges the full retrospective applicability of, and shall fully abide by, the Supply
Agreement, including without limitation as regards article 4.1(b) in case Biodel does not
retrospectively order the Fixed Quarterly Quantities for 2010 and 2011 as required by the Supply
Agreement.




 









 







All terms and conditions of the Supply Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. In case of
any conflict between this side letter and the Supply Agreement, the contents of this side letter
will prevail.




Yours sincerely,

N.V. Organon




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Miriam Meeiwissen
 

Name: Miriam Meeiwissen

	 	 	 	/s/ Frans Lichtenauer
 

Name: Frans Lichtenauer
	 	 
	Title: Marketing Manager 

          Biotechnology Products

	 	 	 	Title: Director for Marketing & Sales APY/Biotech	 	 






For acceptance:



Biodel Inc.




	 	 	 
	/s/ Gerard Michel
 

Name: Gerard Michel

	 	 
	Title: CFO